The analytical program "However," with Mikhail Leontyev 21.12.12
New appointments to key positions in the US administration can mean a very serious adjustment to all US foreign policy.
The new US Secretary of State, obviously, will be Senator, the current head of the foreign policy committee, John Kerry. Approval by the Congress does not portend any problems. John Kerry is a former presidential candidate who lost the election to George W. Bush in 2004. Even then, he spoke out against the war in Iraq, for reducing the military budget and the American presence around the world.
For the post of head of the Pentagon, the White House proposes Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, also opposing the militarization of American foreign policy. Despite belonging to the Republicans, Hagel may have problems in the Congress from the republican side precisely because of his position on the Middle East. In particular, Hagel opposed the recognition of the Lebanese Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, urging Obama to negotiate directly with Hamas, which clearly does not cause enthusiasm from the powerful pro-Israel lobby.
Both candidates are Vietnamese veterans. And like all true veterans harbor a steady dislike for military adventures. And both are proponents of active, flexible and pragmatic diplomacy. However, the most immediate changes in new appointments promise Syria and the entire situation in the region.
Back in 2008, Kerry and Hagel published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “It's time to talk to Syria.” There, in particular, they warned: "Make no mistake: cooperation with Syria is not based on common values, but on common interests." Recall, two weeks ago, "However," the article was quoted by the French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan, who predicted the most serious changes in the US Middle East policy in connection with large-scale purges of hawks in the US administration and future appointments. There, in particular, Meyssan leads a photo in which Kerry and his wife are having dinner with the Assad couple in a Damascus restaurant.
It is not only a matter of the normal personal relations of the new appointees with the political figures who are still being demonized in America. The fact is that they are calm pragmatists. And elementary pragmatism is enough to revise the entire current absurdly surrealistic US policy in the region from Morocco to Afghanistan. But, as we have said, it is not only about this. A clear turn, in any case, the attempt of such in Obama’s policy is connected not so much with Obama’s personality, as with understanding the changed role and possibilities of America in the world.
Against the background, on the one hand, of the crisis of the American financial and economic system, uncollectible debts, and on the other hand, in the light of the coming self-sufficiency in hydrocarbons, the widespread American presence, as well as the geopolitics of oil itself, become an overwhelming and unnecessary burden. The hope of preserving American leadership is directly related to the ability to reduce the number and scale of conflicts to the minimum acceptable size. And this means the need to negotiate with the opponents about the resolution or, at least, the freezing of such conflicts.
America wants to negotiate for the first time in the last 30 years. And America will go from wherever it can go. The world gendarme is trying to relieve himself of unbearable gendarme functions. And this is a problem for many. And by the way, the American client around the world should think about their future. Suitcase, train station, washington?
Information